편의치적선의 법적지위 (Legal Status on Flag of Convenience Ship)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국해사법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 해사법연구 / 20권 / 3호 / 111 ~ 152페이지
· 저자명 : 김인유

초록

이 논문은 세계적으로나 국내적으로나 자연적으로 발생하여 하나의 국제관행이라고 할 수 있을 정도로 많이 행해지고 있는 편의치적선의 법적 지위에 관한 연구로써, 국제법상의 법적 지위와 국내법상의 법적 지위로 나뉘어 고찰하였다.
편의치적선에 대한 국제법적인 지위와 관련하여 국제기구 즉 유엔국제법위원회(ILC), 국제해사기구(IMO), 경제협력개발기구(OECD) 등의 편의치적선 규제에 관한 내용 및 국제운수노동자연맹(ITF)의 편의치적선 반대운동 등을 살펴보았다. 그 논의 및 반대운동의 결과는 일정기준 이상의 안전기준을 충족한 편의치적선에 대해서는 적법성을 인정하는 계기를 마련해 주었다고 볼 수 있다. 한편 편의치적선에 대한 국내법적 지위와 관련해서는, 먼저 편의치적선에 대한 국내 실정법규정은 없지만 실거래에서는 많이 행해지고 있는 편의치적선 제도가 과연 유효한 제도인가를 고찰하였다. 이를 위해 선박법, 외국환관리법 및 관세법 등의 실정법과의 관계와 판례의 입장을 고려하여 그 유효성을 논하였다.
편의치적선은 형식적․법적인 측면에서는 페이퍼 컴퍼니가 당해 편의치적선의 소유자이고, 실질적 측면에서는 자본을 투자한 배후에 있는 자가 실질적인 소유자이다. 이러한 편의치적선의 특성 때문에 우리 행정당국도 해석상의 혼란을 초래하고 있다. 자의적이고 편의적인 해석을 방지한다는 차원에서 편의치적선의 법적 지위를 연구한 논문이다.

영어초록

The flag of convenience ship is the system which has one way-both sides characteristic. In being legal, formal side, paper company becomes the owner of the flag of convenience ship. however, in substance, someone in the rear who invests his money becomes the real owner. such a special feature of the 'FOC' caused our administration authorities throw into confusion.
As an economic principle of Capitalism, 'FOC' is a natural phenomenon of international shipping industry to pursuit to develop competitive power, that survive in international shipping enterprize market.
Nevertheless this fact, if we regard just an object of restriction and push various kinds of restriction then it brings conclusion that atrophied the nation's maritime competitive power.
Relating with legal status on International law of 'FOC', we examined the contents that regulating FOC by international body as ILC, IMO, OECD, and agitating against FOC by ITF etc. Therefore, now, we could see the conclusion of this discussion becomes the beginning that approve legitimacy about FOC meets safety standard.
The other side, relating with legal status on domestic law of FOC, we couldn't see the literature which interpretate its validity but theories that the piercing corporate veil and umgehung des gesetzes is now discussing.
In my personal sight, FOC has validity cause it is a confirmed international habitual and there's no rule that prohibit FOC on international law or domestic law.
Simply, related with customs law, the latest precedent judged that the FOC's importation is illegal thing as by customs law, article 180 enacted. Therefore, the precedent acts it may composes crime of evaded tariff. But, nowadays, in case of the shipment, there is applicated non-tax rate as aircraft. because of amending the customs law. so, in the relations between evaded tariff of customs law, latest regulation may no more meaningfully.
Meantime with the International Private Law, the case where as a matter of FOC becomes problem that the possibility of nationality of FOC with the law of ship's nationalty is a problem regarding the vessel real right, with where put the Conflict of law, after affirming the existence of FOC, not immediate regulative problem against the effectiveness of FOC.
Conclusively with international law or domestic law, FOC is the system which is effective. The fact it was regarding as a violation of the Customs Law because of only regulating in compliance with the international body etc. against the side effect of FOC in existing and the financial income in domestic law didn't be denied. Internationally, at least the sea contamination accident and safety accident are improved plentifully because of strengthen safety standard and domestically, Customs Law it will burn with opening a court of tariff modulo and the problem was escaped, So, if we recognize the 'FOC' has a great harmful influence on maritime society unconditionally, it may be an old thinking that is behind the times.
The policy that thinks FOC in only target of regulation is sublated. Naturally the recognizing of FOC as an express provision is a problem of legislation policy, but a point of view seeing it only target of the regulation must be thrown away.

참고자료

· 없음